Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53986721 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B86CD for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A92E921E84 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:46:45 +0100 (CET) From: Tom Zander To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:47:00 +0100 Message-ID: <14381847.eEjaEFYMVs@cherry> In-Reply-To: <6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com> References: <2318925.r6f9XVyAit@cherry> <6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:29 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited Node Deals With Large Blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:50 -0000 On Saturday, 26 November 2016 15:35:49 CET Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Therefore, it is in the best interest of miners to all set the same block > size limit (and reliably signal in their coinbase TX what that limit is, > as done by Bitcoin Unlimited miners). As a point of interest, last week I merged into Classic the same concept. Classic will now respect the EB limit and put it in the coinbase. > (This actually surprised me because the only way they could lose money is > if some _other_ miner wasted even more money by purposely mining a > destined-to-be-orphaned block.) Your surprise may come from the difference in cost vs. expected earnings of creating a block, which is quite significant. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel